1 2025:CGHC:52774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 659 of 2023 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rama Trade Centre, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Old Bus Stand, Second Floor, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck Trailor No. C G 10-R-2111) ... Appellant versus 1 - Samar Singh Maravi, S/o. Supet Singh Maravi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Nagwahi, Post And Tahsil Marwahi, Present Resident Ward No. 12, Sirgitti, Thana Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Indervati Maravi, W/o. Samar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Nagwahi, Post And Tahsil Marwahi, Present Resident Ward No. 12, Sirgitti, Thana Sirgitti, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Idris Ansari, S/o. Mahamdin Ansari, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Paidli, Thana Bhedan, District Gadwa, Jharkhand, Present Resident Through Nitin Agrawal, Transporter, Agrawalpara, 259, ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.10.30 15:48:59 +0530 2 Ward No. 06, Bilha, Thana Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Vehicle Truck Trailor No. C G 10-R-2111) 4 - Nitin Agrawal, S/o. Late Puran Agrawal, Resident- Business Transporter, Agrawal Para, 259, Ward No. 06, Bilha, Thana Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle Truck Trailor No. C G 10-R-2111) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 29.10.2025 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity & correctness of the impugned award dated 20.12.2022, passed by the learned Eighth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, by which the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,80,080/- has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Ashish Maravi, who was aged about 20 years, at the time of accident. 3 2. Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/ insurance company, would submit that the deceased himself has dashed the standing Trailer, which was insured by the appellant insurance company. Therefore, the deceased himself is responsible for his death and, as such, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Mr. Arvind Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents No.1 & 2 would support the impugned award and submit that the appeal of the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely. 5. The eye-witness to the incident namely Mahipal Singh (AW-2) has clearly stated that though the accident occurred on 31.05.2019 at 12.:30 P.M. but the driver of the offending vehicle has parked the Trailer over the road by which the deceased collided with the Trailer along-with the motorcycle and died. He was subjected to cross-examination, but he has clearly stated that the offending vehicle Trailer was parked in the road. As such, relying upon the statement of the eye- 4 witness Mahipal Singh, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the respondent driver had parked the vehicle in the road negligently by which Ashish Maravi died, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 6. Cross Appeal by the Claimants : Learned counsel for the claimants/respondent No.1 & 2 would submit that the income of the deceased has wrongly been taken as Rs. 8,400/- per month, which is lower side as deceased was working as mechanic and he was semi-killed labour. However, a perusal of the statement of Samar Singh Maravi, father of the deceased, at para 11 of his statement, he has clearly admitted that the deceased was agriculturist. As such, the argument raised that the deceased was working as mechanic has not been established. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the cross appeal filed by the claimants and accordingly, the same is also dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Ashok Judge